Four states were in court on Friday mounting challenges to President Donald Trump’s week-old order stopping citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States, with the challengers contending the move was unconstitutional.
The states’ arguments focused on the ban’s alleged targeting of people based on religion, which would violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibiting the government from favoring one religion over another.
The White House has contended the moves were necessary for national security, and Justice Department lawyers in Boston on Friday said religion had not been a factor in the selection of the seven countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
Less than 60,000 visas previously issued to citizens of those seven countries have been invalidated for now as a result of the order, the U.S. State Department said on Friday in response to media reports that government lawyers were citing a figure of 100,000.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuits included both foreign nationals who had been detained while re-entering the United States last weekend and others who had visas but were now afraid to leave the country because they might not be readmitted.
The new Republican president’s order signed on Jan. 27 triggered chaos at U.S. airports last weekend. Some travelers abroad were turned back from flights into the United States, crowds of hundreds of people packed into arrival areas to protest and legal objections were filed across the country.
“The legal issues in this case are complex, but in many ways this case gets to the heart of who we are as Americans,” Democratic Attorney General Mark Herring of Virginia said after a hearing on his state’s challenge. “We do not discriminate based on religion, race, or national origin. That is why we will continue to fight.”
The order also temporarily stopped the entry of all refugees into the country and indefinitely halted the settlement of Syrian refugees.
Federal judges in Boston and Seattle also were weighing arguments.
SKEPTICISM IN BOSTON
In Boston, a federal judge expressed skepticism about a civil rights group’s claim that Trump’s order represented religious discrimination.
Civil-rights advocates in the Massachusetts capital called on U.S. District Judge Nathan Gorton to extend a restraining order issued early on Sunday that for seven days blocks the detention or removal of approved refugees, visa holders, and legal permanent U.S. residents who entered from the seven countries.
“Where does it say Muslim countries?” Gorton asked Matthew Segal, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) representing the plaintiffs in the Boston case.
Segal responded, “If your honor’s question is, ‘Does the word ‘Muslim’ make a profound presence in this executive order?,’ my answer is that it doesn’t. But the president described what he was going to do as a Muslim ban and then he proceeded to carry it out.”
Gorton shot back, “Am I to take the words of an executive at any point before or after election as a part of that executive order?”
The state of Massachusetts, the anti-poverty group Oxfam and seven Iranian nationals have joined the lawsuit.
The initial ban on permanent residents, or green card holders, was one of the most confusing elements in the executive order signed on Jan. 27. But following an outcry and legal challenges, the Department of Homeland Security said on Sunday that green card holders would be allowed on planes to the United States and would be assessed upon arrival.
Gorton asked U.S. Justice Department lawyer Joshua Press how the seven countries had been selected.
Press responded that the list had come from a law passed in 2015 and amended early last year requiring that citizens of the seven countries apply for visas to enter the United States, “out of concern about the refugees that were coming, mainly from Syria at that time and terrorist events that were occurring in Europe.”
Trump has told a Christian broadcaster that Syrian Christians would be given priority in applying for refugee status in the United States.
In Seattle, the states of Washington and Minnesota were together asking a judge to suspend the entire policy nationwide, which would represent the broadest ruling to date against Trump’s directive.
Should the Seattle judge rule that Washington state and Minnesota have legal standing to sue, it could help Democratic attorneys general take on Trump in court on issues beyond immigration.
During his campaign, Trump proposed temporarily banning Muslims from entering the country to protect against terrorist threats. On Thursday, he defended the restrictions as necessary to protect religious liberty.
(Additional reporting by Mica Rosenberg in New York and Lesley Wroughton and Susan Heavey in Washington; Editing by Janet Lawrence and Jonathan Oatis)
Mississippi Republican who lost to Democrat by 14 votes files request for state House to void the election and declare her the winner
On Thursday, Mississippi Today reported that state Rep. Ashley Henley, who lost her bid for re-election to Democrat Hester Jackson-McCray by just 14 votes in November, has filed a request for the GOP-controlled state legislature to overturn the results of the election and seat Henley for another term.
Henley cites what she claims are several irregularities in voter signature collection, and "missing" ballots. "There were irregularities that happened, absolutely, documented, very much so that bring into question the legitimacy of the election results," said Henley said. "That is without question."
Trump’s campaign manager mocked for proudly sharing poll that suggests Dems will keep the House in 2020
On Thursday, President Donald Trump's campaign manager Brad Parscale posted a poll that was meant to warn Democrats off of their impeachment efforts, by showing how it was hurting their prospects in a competitive House race.
Specifically, the "confidential" poll showed freshman Rep. Kendra Horn (R-OK) down seven points against a generic Republican, and impeachment opposed 52 percent to 45 percent:
Nancy Pelosi is marching members of her caucus off the plank and into the abyss.
Impeachment is killing her freshman members and polling proves it.
Two House Democrats push a clever plan that calls Republicans’ bluff on their Biden attacks
Democratic Reps. Katie Porter of California and Max Rose of New York introduced a clever plan this week that will expose whether Republicans’ criticisms of former Vice President Joe Biden in the Ukraine scandal reflect good faith — or if, as many assume, they are just a shameful distraction and a bluff.
The lawmakers announced a bill on Wednesday called the Transparency in Executive Branch Officials’ Finances Act. It has two key components:First, it would require all politically appointed executive branch officials, as well as the president and the vice president, to “disclose any positions they or any members of their extended families hold with foreign-owned businesses, any intellectual property they own that is protected or enforced by a foreign country, and whether any members of their families have stakes in companies that engage in significant foreign business dealings.”Second, it will “require the President and Vice President to disclose their tax returns for the previous five taxable years and prohibit political appointees from accepting payments from foreign entities.”
What’s clever about the proposal is that it latches on to two important issues, creating a wedge for Republicans. As part of the GOP’s defense of President Donald Trump in the Ukraine scandal, Republicans have argued that the president’s patently corrupt efforts to get a foreign country to investigate Biden, a political rival, were legitimate because the former vice president’s son created a conflict of interest by taking part in business in Ukraine.